5 ms·

That's interesting news to me. I did wonder why smoking paraphernalia continued to appear in planes that were covered in anti-smoking insignia. I always assum

by brc 14y ago

That's interesting news to me. I did wonder why smoking paraphernalia continued to appear in planes that were covered in anti-smoking insignia. I always assumed that the bathrooms, seat etc were made in large quantities, and that there are a lot of countries in the world where you can still light up in a flight, not to mention privately owned planes. I once flew on a Japan Air Lines flight back in the '90s. At that stage they still had the back 6 rows or something as smoking seats. The girl who assigned my seat at check in didn't realise this and allocated me there. I just sat there and took it for 8 hours - nowadays I would have loudly demanded an upgrade out of there - but I was somewhat meek in accepting my fate. The lady next to me had just been to bury a relative in a car crash and was on the way back home. She must have drank half a bottle of whisky and smoked two packets of cigarettes. When I arrived I smelt like a tobacco spitoon and felt as though I had sand rubbed in my eyes. Allowing smoking on planes was and is a terrible idea. The fire risk alone should immediately discount it.

Turing_Machine 14y ago
"The fire risk alone should immediately discount it." A quick Google turns up only two airline accidents possibly attributed to cigarettes (a 1982 Illyshin IL-18 crash in Guangzhou, China and a 1973 crash in France). Pretty minimal, given that smoking was allowed on millions of flights for close to 90 years.
- seanmcdirmid 14y ago
  We fly a lot more now than before deregulation, while many countries are just emerging with people who commonly commute via planes. I wouldn't be surprised if passenger miles from 1990 to 2010 were larger than 1900 to 1990. Flying used to be a high-class affair, now anyone can fly; not allowing smoking is probably a good thing in that context. At least, here in China, people are not careful in the way they smoke, and I wouldn't get on a plane that allowed smoking. Ever see a Starbucks trashcan go up in smoke after someone was told they couldn't smoke there? Its quite funny the first couple of times, but it gets old after that.
- brc 14y ago
  That's two more crashes than is necessary if you ask me. You're not allowed to take firecrackers on a plane, and there probably isn't any recorded crashes from firecrackers. Besides, you don't need to crash a plane to make it a bad idea. Just damaging it or creating a smoke filled (as in burning material, not cigarettes) interior is bad enough. I can see how you might think it's OK if you're a smoker, but I'm happy that there isn't any smoking.
lloeki 14y ago
> Allowing smoking on planes was and is a terrible idea. The fire risk alone should immediately discount it. Yet, people still smoke around pumps at gas stations and even throw the butt to the ground.
- fr0sty 14y ago
  And given that a lit cigarette is not hot enough to ignite gasoline vapor what is the issue? Representative sample: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/feb/27/smoking.film http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/feb/27/smoking.film
  - 5teev 14y ago
    The real danger is the unlit cigarette.
  - lloeki 14y ago
    From the article itself, gasoline ignites at 270°C and cigarettes burn at 700°C+. "we tried a bunch of stuff and it did not do squat" is not quite scientific enough to have me stand in the middle of a gas puddle while a dumbass throws a butt at my feet. I bet you would not take the risk either.
jrockway 14y ago
The fire risk alone should immediately discount it. In case you haven't noticed, the trash bins on airliners are designed to be air-tight so that a discarded cigarette that ignites a trash fire does not burn for long. There is essentially no fire risk, as a small fire will be immediately extinguished by one of the other 200 people on your plane with nothing else to do. Cigarettes are dangerous if you are smoking alone and fall asleep in bed. When 200 other people are within 50 feet of you, not so much. A cancer risk, however, definitely yes.

by brc 14y ago

Turing_Machine 14y ago

"The fire risk alone should immediately discount it." A quick Google turns up only two airline accidents possibly attributed to cigarettes (a 1982 Illyshin IL-18 crash in Guangzhou, China and a 1973 crash in France). Pretty minimal, given that smoking was allowed on millions of flights for close to 90 years.

seanmcdirmid 14y ago
We fly a lot more now than before deregulation, while many countries are just emerging with people who commonly commute via planes. I wouldn't be surprised if passenger miles from 1990 to 2010 were larger than 1900 to 1990. Flying used to be a high-class affair, now anyone can fly; not allowing smoking is probably a good thing in that context. At least, here in China, people are not careful in the way they smoke, and I wouldn't get on a plane that allowed smoking. Ever see a Starbucks trashcan go up in smoke after someone was told they couldn't smoke there? Its quite funny the first couple of times, but it gets old after that.
brc 14y ago
That's two more crashes than is necessary if you ask me. You're not allowed to take firecrackers on a plane, and there probably isn't any recorded crashes from firecrackers. Besides, you don't need to crash a plane to make it a bad idea. Just damaging it or creating a smoke filled (as in burning material, not cigarettes) interior is bad enough. I can see how you might think it's OK if you're a smoker, but I'm happy that there isn't any smoking.

lloeki 14y ago

> Allowing smoking on planes was and is a terrible idea. The fire risk alone should immediately discount it. Yet, people still smoke around pumps at gas stations and even throw the butt to the ground.

fr0sty 14y ago
And given that a lit cigarette is not hot enough to ignite gasoline vapor what is the issue? Representative sample: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/feb/27/smoking.film http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/feb/27/smoking.film
- 5teev 14y ago
  The real danger is the unlit cigarette.
- lloeki 14y ago
  From the article itself, gasoline ignites at 270°C and cigarettes burn at 700°C+. "we tried a bunch of stuff and it did not do squat" is not quite scientific enough to have me stand in the middle of a gas puddle while a dumbass throws a butt at my feet. I bet you would not take the risk either.

jrockway 14y ago

The fire risk alone should immediately discount it. In case you haven't noticed, the trash bins on airliners are designed to be air-tight so that a discarded cigarette that ignites a trash fire does not burn for long. There is essentially no fire risk, as a small fire will be immediately extinguished by one of the other 200 people on your plane with nothing else to do. Cigarettes are dangerous if you are smoking alone and fall asleep in bed. When 200 other people are within 50 feet of you, not so much. A cancer risk, however, definitely yes.